CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:

Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.

To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.

Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.

When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.

Chesapeake vs. New England Colonies- Which was more successful?

I think that the New England colonies were more successful because their locations along the coast was easier to access by sea-route than the Chesapeake colonies, was less marshy, and was colonized more by people who were used to getting their own food, unlike the "gentleman" colonists at Chesapeake.

The New England Colonies did have easier location than the Chesepeake Bay colony. But the "marshy" lands that the Chesepeake Bay Colony had, made its land more fertile for irrigation and planting than the New England Colinies. Even though the location was more convienient for the New England Colonies, the land that the Chesepeake Bay has made it more worth the time to navigate through the Marchy lands for plantations.

I agree with the fact that the New England colonies were more successful, but your assumption that the sea route to the New England colonies was better than the access to the Chesapeake colonies is wrong. Although the Chesapeake colonies weren't directly accessible off the ocean, it was safer and more practical to have to sail up into the Chesapeake Bay. The bay gave protection to the ships coming, going, and the docked ones.

I agree because the Chesapeake had weak soil due to all of the growth of tobacco. The nutrients in the soil were depleted. The air was much cleaner in New England as well and it was more environmentally friendly. However, the environment doesn't necessarily determine whether the colonies were more successful but I do believe the New England colonies had more of an advantage and they used it. They used the soil to grow crops and boost their economy and they also worked harder to put a good, stable community together unlike the Chesapeake colonists.

The New England colonies were much more successful when in comparison to the Chesapeake colonies. Not only was there a larger population, but there was also a lower percentage for death rate. Though they both were settled indefinitely, the new England colonies were better because in the end, because of the amount of families that lived there, leading to a larger more efficient settlement.

I agree with your statement because there were more females in New England which helped the men make families. With their families they were able to have a larger and more efficient population. In the end, this helped New England with their trading and economy.

What you said is somewhat true but then again the Chesapeake colonies did use slaves. Slaves were helpful to the Chesapeake colonies because there was active trading among since, there was a demand for labor. Their economy was also affected because plantation owners didn't have to pay the slave worker's labor wages and they forced the slaves to work hard leading to more crops being produced in an efficient manner.

I believe the Chesapeake Colonies were more successful in comparison to the New England Colonies. At first, disease and lack of workers created a problem for the Chesapeake colonies but eventually time took its toll and created successful colonies. The people of the Chesapeake Colonies made it through some tough times such as the "Great Starvation" and many wars with the Native Americans and with the power to do that, they could do anything.

I think that New England was more successful because New England has a bigger population and the Chesapeake Colony had a bunch of diseases that caused there population to decrease like malaria, dysentery, and typhoid.

The Chesapeake founded their colony on swampy terrain. This we all know by now. Unfortunately mosquitoes use such areas as breeding grounds. Mosquitoes are infamous for their ability to spread diseases, one such disease is malaria. Symptoms of malaria include fever, shivering, joint pain, vomiting, anemia, and convulsions. Also, the overall fatality rate runs approximately one-in-ten.

Your argument is illogical, due to the fact it is unsupported by any lasting or fully functional facts. Most if not all the colonies suffered from disease and other terminal plagues. Not to mention there were also large populations in other colonies other than the New England colonies. There are simply not enough actualities to support your standing verdict.

Your argument is illogical, due to the fact it is unsupported by any lasting or fully functional facts. Most if not all the colonies suffered from disease and other terminal plagues. Not to mention there were also large populations in other colonies other than the New England colonies. There are simply not enough actualities to support your standing verdict.

Your argument is illogical, due to the fact it is unsupported by any lasting or fully functional facts. Most if not all the colonies suffered from disease and other terminal plagues. Not to mention there were also large populations in other colonies other than the New England colonies. There are simply not enough actualities to support your standing verdict.

The fact that the New England colonies were bigger serves as a good indicator of the success of these colonies. More people meant a better quality of life and their success would draw more people to migrate there.

In my opinion, New England was more successful than the Chesapeake Bay colonies. For example, the settlers that arrived at New England tended to arrive as families while the colonists of Chesapeake Bay consisted more of men. The women in the New England colonies had more freedom and since there was a higher ratio of men to women, in the Chesapeake Bay colonies, it was more difficult for the men to start families, which resulted in having a higher death rate.

I agree with what you are saying about New England because if you have just men then there is less birth rate, but if you have more men in your colony then things will get done faster, so there is a positive to having a lot of men just not your population being made entirely of men.

I agree with you. The New England colonists came to the New World with starting a colony in mind and producing a community of people, while the Chesapeake colonists were more concerned with finding gold and gaining profit for themselves. The New England colonists were able to start families because there were women present and so their population was able to multiply and grow unlike the Chesapeake colonies. Their population didn't increase because there was no way to reproduce. There were Native American women, but it was less likely that they would start a family because of the conflict between the settlers and natives.

This is an excellent arguement, the ratio of women to men is an extremely valid point. You could also infer that more women were willing to move to the New England area due to the better quality of living.

I believe New England colonies were more successful due to the fact they had well educated leader. Their economy had prospered do to fur trading, fishing and shipbuilding becoming important industries. Out of all the New England outposts, Massachusetts Bay Colony was one of the biggest/most influential of them all. They also had a strong belief with god - giving them hope to look positively toward their future.

Despite the circumstances at the time, religion wasn’t necessarily the cause for the New England settlers to “look positively to their future”. If anything it told of how bad the New England colonies were doing because of how they had to turn to religion so much. As for the well-educated leader, there is no proof of one in your answer. Not to mention most leaders at the time weren’t educated in the art of colonization. One is to question if the facts given were even real.

Despite the circumstances at the time, religion wasn’t necessarily the cause for the New England settlers to “look positively to their future”. If anything it told of how bad the New England colonies were doing because of how they had to turn to religion so much. As for the well-educated leader, there is no proof of one in your answer. Not to mention most leaders at the time weren’t educated in the art of colonization. One is to question if the facts given were even real.

There are many leaders that were well-educated. For example, John Winthrop. He became the Massachusetts Bay's first governor. He was a successful attorney, and previously was a manor lord in England. It doesn't directly say he is well-educated, but wouldn't one make an educated guess for him to be smart, for him to be a successful attorney? As for religion, if Winthrop did not receive what he believed to be a 'calling' from god, he wouldn't have supported the religious experiment known as Puritanism. They shared a belief called the 'Protestant Ethic' which had a large impact on the colonies success. It involved serious commitment to work.

The more successful colonies in the Americas were the colonies of New England. These colonies were more successful due to the fact that the colonists of Jamestown and the surrounding area of the Chesapeake Bay consisted of mostly w ealthy men who were not used to any form of laborous task. The only reason they went to the Americas in hopes of finding gold and other precious materials. The colonists of Plymouth and other New England colonies were seeking freedom from religious opression. These people were used to working hard, as they were the lower class while living in England. Also, along with the help of the Natives, the New Englanders were able to farm more efficiently and have more agricultural success. Ergo, they had a much lower mortality rate than the colonists of the Chesapeake Bay.

The New England Colonies were more successful in my opinion. The Chesapeake colonies were a more disfunctional group of people, most of which were indentured servants. The New England Colonies were more of an orderly established group and because of such the colonies grew to become tightly knit and proper. The New England colonies were able to grow their colony naturally while the Chesapeake colony had a number of deaths causing it to be harder to reproduce. The New england colonies were more religiously and family centered. Since most Immigrant came as families the New England colonies didn't need to bring more people in because they had the means to reproduce naturally.

The New England colonies, or at least a few of them, formed the New England Confederation. It was one of the first recognizable building blocks of colonial unity. Without the New England colonies' step would the colonies have still united?

I feel that the colonies would have united sooner or later, given the crown's increasing "involvement" in the New England area's colonies after they showed signs of prospering. The colonies would probably have seen that banding together would provide some semblance of legal and political safety against Britain's royal families.

The New England Colonies had more success than the Chesapeake Bay Colonies. Although they were both started by Europeans, the New England Colonies were set up with more organization. They created governments and "constitutions" that were created and understood by the people. They even tried to obtain Independence from their mother country and had unity from one colony to another. With trade set up they allowed for much more money to be spread throughout the economy. The stable environment of the New England Colonies allowed for the success that the poorly lead Jamestown could not achieve.

I believe New England colonies have been more successful in settleing down and building their economy. They were definently more sucessful than the chesapeake colony when they started off. New England was beginning to be a very healthy place and one settler claimed "inhaling one breath of fresh New England air was better than all of Old Englands ale".

Children were growing up in a nurturing enviornment where they learned to read and write and were actively going to school. Full families began moving to New England rather than the Chesapeake. Also, laws prohibited men from abusing their wives in New England and abandonment was punishable.

Another point to make why New England colonies were more successful since a shared sense was among the first settlers. Also, since majority of the Englishmen left the colonies to the West Indies or Barbados, yet some of the colonies still remained STRONG and withheld with the short population

Disagree. Most Englishmen did not leave to Barbados or the West Indies- only those wealthy and able did so. West Indies and Barbados were mostly inhabited by absentee landlords- men whom still lived in England but yet controlled land through slaves.

The Chesapeake Colony had a clear advantage which set them apart as the far more successful colony, attributed to their early origin; they were the first seeded, and were largely organized to begin with. They paved the way for the British demand for the poor man's crop of Tobacco, and created a steady colony-dependent crop that is today a multi-billion dollar industry. Furthermore, they were the seed of the America we know today, forming a crude colonial delegation that ran themselves under British yoke which blossomed into a magnificent government of democratic ideals. Their population was organized and united, surviving terrible early conditions under strict military leadership and essentially establishing themselves within a swamp to a bastion of Old World power in the New World while the New England colony was still struggling against the large Algonquin tribes.

crudeesapeake colony was more successful in my opinion, in that it was a colony based off of its plantations of Tobacco- which got it more money in its economy later on. The House of Burgesses had control over the militia and the finances gotten. But in the New England Colonies, when Plymouth was settled, the mayflower compact was made and basically made from a “crude” government that had no real governmental decisions. Therefore, the Chesapeake colony was more successful in the standpoint of its government from success of trade, than that of its northern colony.

The settlements in New England were generally more successful due to the fact that the settlers usually came with women and children and were able to create a stable society much like the one in England. Also, the towns and villages of New England were much closer together than those of Chesapeake. This allowed the New Englanders more opportunities to exchange services and create a trade system that resembled a somewhat stable economy.

Another reason I think that New England was more successful is they were very prosperous and more modernized than the Chesapeake because their population had a more known language throughout, which was English.

Another reason I think that New England was more successful is they were very prosperous and more modernized than the Chesapeake because their population had a more known language throughout, which was English.

The Chesapeake colonies were more agricultural then the New England colonies. But because they were more agricultural, their staple crop being tobacco, they were more spread out leaving the colonist with little to no communication with the other colonists. The region was also filled with diseases such as malaria and typhoid. The region was unhealthy and because of such it decreased the life expectance of the colonists whereas when the colonist migrated to the New England colonies it actually added ten years to the life expectance. Though gradually the Chesapeake colonies did gain immunity and a foundation, that foundation was still rocky. They had a tough time creating a population and the people were dying like flies. New England had a more stable colony with families, industry, and a solid government. In conclusion the New England Colonies had a more successful colony.

This is an awesome argument! I wish I had come up with an argument as good as yours. I am serious going to enjoy looking at your arguments in the future. I would suggest mentioning what sort of economy the New England colonies had if they were less agricultural than the Chesapeake colonies.

I believe that the New England colonies were more successful than the Chesapeake because there was a lot of war and conflict present in the Chesapeake with the Native Americans. The economy of the New England colonies prospered because of fishing, fur trading, and shipbuilding. In the Chesapeake there were a higher number of death rates than in New England due to disease and there was no way to reproduce, seeing as there were no women. The New England colonies were much more stable and they believed that all men were equal, so in fact they worked more than in the Chesapeake where the men were gentlemen and did not want to work because they expected it to be done for them.

I agree with your argument somewhat, because although there may not have been "wars" with Native Americans in the New England Colonies there were other disputes. Between the colonies and their surroundings inhabitants (such as their Swedish neighbors) their was friction and the Puritans did have arguments with the Wampanoag Indians. Other than that your argument was pretty valid!

Your argument makes no sense. Thats like saying the colony had better lodging so they went there more often. When the ships set out from England they were headed to a specific port, not the one with the easiest access.

During the colonial era, Chesapeake colonies were more successful than the New England Colonies. The original purpose of of the New England Colonies was to allow the colonists freedom from religious oppression. However, the New England colonies failed to allow its inhabitants religious freedom. Anne Hutchinson was driven out for challenging Puritan orthodoxy and the peaceful Quakers were persecuted. New England failed to fulfill its purpose- religious freedom- at the most fundamental level.

On the other hand, the Chesapeake colony succeeded in its purpose. The Virginia Company of London sent colonists to America for one reason: to make money. After a rocky start, the discovery of tobacco as the perfect cash crop sent the economy skyrocketing and thus made the Virginia Company successful.

New England was more successful than the Chesapeake Bay colony due to several reasons. First off, New England settlers consisted of mostly Puritans who attempted to create an ideal community enriched with religion and unity which allowed the colonists to focus on God and on their family. In contrast, Chesapeake colonists were “gentlemen” who did not hunt for their own food which resulted in many lives lost. Next, New England developed little cities and towns, helping it become more economical than Chesapeake Bay, which was beneficial for their trading.

The Chesapeake Colonies were also more successful than the New England colonies because they supported broad agriculture through the highly successful plantation system. The Chesapeake colonies also did not have to deal as much with religious discrimination such as the discrimination against Quakers in Boston. The New England Colonies were also places for common religious conflict.

New England colonies were better off in the long run, because they had limited amount of diseases. One of the leading factors for this was the location of the colonies. Being in a colder climate, some diseases couldn’t survive. Unfortunately where it was warmer, the diseases could live, which led to higher death rates for other colonies. Therefore, the New England colonies were much more successful.

I believe that living in the chesepeake would have been a bad life. Disease plagued settlers for long periods of time and political chaos was going on in Jamestown. Settlers spent so much time looking for gold that wasent there that you couldent really call Jamestown a town due to the determination of the settlers to find gold that they pretty much ignored everything else in order to find it.

As a whole, both colonies had success. Eventually they did join forces but in the beginning, I believe the New England colonies were more successful. Rather than being based on agriculture like the Chesapeake, they focused on other factors such as ship building and carpentry. Ship building allowed the New Englanders to explore places more efficiently and travel back to the Old World for trade, etc.. New England was also more successful because they were more religiously tolerant leading to a higher population especially in Quakers, Catholics and Puritans.

I completely agree with you Aida, the New England Colonies totally expanded their horizons. They also went into the slave business. With many African slaves being "imported" in, slowly replacing the white indentured servants, they supplied countless amounts of labor to tend the fields and other "dirty" jobs no one else dared to do.

Another reason to support that the New England Colonies were better off than the Chesapeake Bay Colonies was the quality of life in the prior. In the Chesapeake Bay Colonies the inhabitants were almost all men who were used to being given everything, which bit them in the behind when the starving times came from no stored food. Disease, mosquitos, lack of women, and judgment clouded by the desire for gold all played a role in an unhealthy environment leading to poor quality life. On the other hand, New England Colonies were much more organized and started under the Puritans. The Puritans had a plan in which they would live simply while serving God. It was also said in New England instead of subtracting 10 or more years off your life, like in Chesapeake, you could add 10 years because of the healthy home. There also were more families in New England than in Chesapeake because of the greater men to women ratio. In conclusion, the New England Colonies were a much better place to live because the people had long and healthy lifestyles.

I feel that the New England colonies were more productive, mostly thanks to the colonists of the region who, unlike the Chesapeake colonies, were better prepared and willing to put basics (food, water, shelter) before searching for gold. Also, the New England colonies were easier to access, paving the way for a future in the shipbuilding and timber industries

Does anyone feel that although religion did not play a critical role in how either the Chesapeake or New England colonies were founded, it at least survived as a large enough issue to persuade aspiring colonists to one colony or the other, depending on their religious beliefs and values?

It seems that everyone here is arguing that the Chesapeake colonies' location was less ideal for trade with England than the New England colonies'. That is absolutely not true. Ships docked in a bay which protected them from the stormy Atlantic. That network of rivers and swamps that gave everyone typhoid in the beginning was now both an irrigation system and a network of trading routes. Without this network, the vast tobacco plantations that were key to Chesapeake's success would not have been possible. While Chesapeake was flourishing, New England's rocky soil and lack of river networks kept it from obtaining success on the world economic scene.

Due to the number of women present, the location, and the work ethic of the men the New England colonies were clearly superior. Their location was right along the shore which is convient and the presence of so many women is a sign that their standard of living was superior to that of the Chesapeake colonies. Also, with the Chesapeake colonies being made up of primarily men it was hard to maintain the population. On top of this the men who did live there were "gentlemen" and not accustomed to hard work. The marshy ground of the Chesapeake area did not lend well to them becoming extremely successful.

Although the the Chesapeake colonies made a bigger impact in the economic stand point, in my opinion the New England colonies were more successful over all. The settlement at Plymouth was more stable, in that it was an actual colony, not just a whole bunch of spread out plantations. The New England colonists were like little cities that would last longer and had well formed goverments. Their governing was the basis for the government America still has.

I agree with you that the Chesapeake did make a big economic impact because that was honestly the first reason for coming to America in the first place and then religious freedom was second. Anyways, I’m going to have to disagree with the rest of your statement. The Chesapeake colonies did make a lasting impact on government. Virginia’s House of Burgesses and House of Lords is a model for today’s House of Representatives and Senate and also Georgia was the first colony to try to prevent slavery. Everything was stable in the Chesapeake colonies too at least much more than the New England colonies because everybody in the Chesapeake colonies minded pretty much their own business. The New England colonies also had to face about the same amount of problems as the Chesapeake colonies: Indian warfare, disease, poverty, government/power struggles, English rule, and especially religious discrimination. Also the New England colonies could not have survived on their own without the help of the agricultural Chesapeake colonies.

You bring up good points but not all of them are vaild. For one you cant say that since Virginia is where government strarted is more successful. I cant say that D.C is more successful city than New York today because thats not how it is. Yes you are right that New England did have to suffer same amount of dilemnas that Chesapeake did but not on such a high scale. The settlement of Jamestown took a long time to get established for one one of their governors Berkely was ran out of Jamestown! The New England Colonist more of befriended the Indians rather than push them out of their land. Isin't agriculture on such high means a bad thing for a country everyone is trying to bring together? Also black slavery was looked down on in some colonies in New England.

At this point in history, black slavery wasn't really an issue in America. There were only a few black slaves anywhere. As the book says "blacks were too costly for most of the hard-pinched white colonists to afford"

I think that the Chesapeake colonies were most successful. I think this because Virginia was the first colony and opened the door for all the other English colonies. Also many colonists were drawn to the Chesapeake colonies because of its successful tobacco industry, especially Virginia. The Carolinas were also very successful because of their sugar relations with Indians from Barbados. Georgia was also very successful because it had a valuable silk and wine industry. Georgia was also a haven for people in debt and also tried at first to keep slavery out of Georgia. In the Chesapeake colonies there was also religious toleration for Protestants.

I understand your point that the Chesapeake colonies had much more revenue than the New England colonies, but your argument that being the first colony makes them more successful isn't really valid. The Spanish were really the ones to open the door for the exploration and colonization of the New World.

Even though Virginia was the first colony many colonists were afraid of going there because of fear of dying in the New World. At the start of the settlement nothing really got done in Virginia due to all of the colonists hunger for gold that wasent even there! The Tabacco industry was doing pretty good at first but the crop became easy to obtain and the price dropped.

I believe that the New England colonies were more successful than the Chesapeake because they were Puritans and were simple. They didn’t need all of the fancy things like in England and they focused on the important things like organizing a community and being productive. The New England colonists also were able to focus more on family and God compared to the Chesapeake colonists who were just looking to make money for themselves.

Although lots of New Englanders were Puritans it still does not deny the fact that there was conflict with the Anglican Catholics and not to mention the Quakers who were harshly discriminated against to the point of physical abuse. Also the Chesapeake people did have a sense of community but it was just broader since they owned lots of land and lived far from each other. The Chesapeake people were also not just focused on making money; they had families too and also wanted to make a better life for themselves. You have to remember that most people that came to America after Jamestown were not wealthy they were usually poor trying to make a better life therefore they wanted to make money off of having big plantations.

I agree somewhat with your statement. The fact that the New England colonies were Puritan were both beneficial, and detrimental. Religion caused a lot of dispute about how much power they were alloted, things weren't always so simple.